Just 8 men own same wealth as half the world

Do they <i>consume</i> as much as half the world? If the money is invested, where&#x27;s the problem? Wealth inequality only matters for the well-being of the poor insofar as it affects consumption inequality. Why not talk about how much more they consume than everyone else instead of how much more wealth they have? Because talking about wealth makes for better rhetoric: wealth is understood as an indicator of social status and Oxfam doesn&#x27;t think the very rich should have that much social status. It has nothing to do with the economic well-being of the poor.<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;marginalrevolution.com&#x2F;marginalrevolution&#x2F;2008&#x2F;07&#x2F;xxxxxxx.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;marginalrevolution.com&#x2F;marginalrevolution&#x2F;2008&#x2F;07&#x2F;xxx...</a>

I was under the impression about half the world had zero or negative wealth.<p>Is this one of those statements where you could also say someone with $1000 net worth also has more than half the world, but they chose the billionaires to be more inflammatory? Or was the 50% line chosen because the 45% of the world has zero&#x2F;negative wealth, and 8 billionaires happen to have more than than sliver of 5% in between?

For that reason we should all be grateful that money doesn&#x27;t buy happiness.

This again. This comes out every year and is equally misleading each time. Here&#x27;s an article from 2014 going into exactly why it&#x27;s misleading <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.bbc.com&#x2F;news&#x2F;magazine-26613682" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.bbc.com&#x2F;news&#x2F;magazine-26613682</a>

These Oxfam reports always go for the sensationalist headline, but it is utterly meaningless. By their measure, some middle-class family with a mortgage (which implies access to credit markets, jobs, stability and all of the comforts of a healthy economy) is in worse situation than some homeless person and no debt.